Sometimes I like to respond to posts/threads that are days, weeks, months old, etc. I don't necessarily think they should take the top-notch, center-stage spotlight of the "active forums" list. Wondering at the software folks if there is a better way of indexing to accommodate this kind of thing? Like a priority toggle or radio-button selection on a response post? (e.g. "I want to respond, but I don't want folks to have to wade through the stale thread I'm posting to.) Is this possible?
fallow
[ March 25, 2004, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: fallow ]
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
I don't quite know what you are getting at. There isn't always the volume of brand new threads that we have been seeing the last couple of days. Yet another example of hatrack cycles. By a stale thread, do you simply mean an old one?
If a thread really engages people, folks will remember it and check back to it and make more replies. The pop threads with only a few replies will eventually shake down.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
skrika03,
I tend to eyeball the list of active threads when I log on. Some are of interest, others aren't. When I peruse more deeply, I might come upon a thread that is old, not the topic of the day, but one that I might want to post to. By posting, it tosses that thread up amongst the active thoughts/fancies/critical issues of that day. Adds another "active" topic that really isn't so active. Seems a little inefficient.
fallow
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
I still don't understand what you are proposing as an alternative. What we have here is democracy in one of its crudest forms. No one promised it would yield the highest quality, though I think it is still generally good. But the last week has seen an uncommon number of redundant threads. There has been a couple of bouts of dobiehrea and that mafia glurp was truly a fluke. -pooka
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Are you suggesting something like the Lion? Threads are ordered by start date, and posting doesn't bump them (or only some of the time)? From experience, that makes it incredibly time-consuming to figure out where to continue reading.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Pooka,
I wasn't suggesting an alternative, I was posing a question.
Richard,
I'm not familiar with "Lion". It just dawned on me that my desire to vomit up a response to the threads I'm interested in, might not be of common interest. That being the case, the typical active threads aren't always my most pressing interests. I was wondering if there might be a way to segregate these somehow?
fallow
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
I like the structure where you can reply to a reply within a thread. After four days the original thread "dies" though it is still accessible through daughter threads. But I don't know if that would work with the volume we have on this board.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Pooka,
As a constructive alternative, I would suggest a top-ranking highlight of the day's threads based on activity, not the most recent of posts. That's all. It would give the newly logged-in a chance to look over the day's topics and news (if they hadn't absorbed), and the favored digestions thereof before moving on. I was wondering at the technical challenges involved (really nothing to do with with the posters).
fallow
Posted by skrika03 (Member # 5930) on :
I think you get a feel for it over time, though yesterday I had too look on the second page for threads I had been following more than once. I don't ever use the active threads view.
I thought you might be looking for my Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle initiative . me. I think this came up on one of those OSC fan threads that is gone now.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Getting a feel for it over time, ok... well, that's the inefficiency I'm talking about. Doesn't strike me as being all that necessary. but what do I know?
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
me. I think this came up on one of those OSC fan threads that is gone now.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)